Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:15:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ccsanady@bob.scl.ameslab.gov, brandon@roguetrader.com, wilko@yedi.iaf.nl, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Known problems with async ufs? Message-ID: <199710020815.BAA24245@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.971002124817.7227A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> from "Michael Hancock" at Oct 2, 97 01:05:06 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It will also mean that there are no hooks to guarantee transactions > > are idempotent (multiple atomic transactions considered as an > > all-or-nothing unit) for something like a user accessible transaction > > tracking system. > > I think you're looking for another term. Idempotent transactions are like > reads where you can repeat the transaction without ill-effects. > Non-idempotent transactions modify the state of the system such that they > can't be repeated, say rmdir foo. > > Multiple atomic transactions that are atomic can be restated as an atomic > transaction. Reads advance the file pointer, unless they are mread. Same for write vs. mwrite. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710020815.BAA24245>